With reports on the death toll in Iran since the outbreak of mass protests more than two weeks ago ranging from 5,000 to 30,000, experts describe the situation as the most violent phase of repression in the country’s modern history. While the European Union has condemned Tehran’s actions and announced plans to expand sanctions against Iranian officials and the drone-manufacturing sector, questions remain about how effective such measures can be, given that during the Islamic Republic’s 47-year history, Iran has been subjected to numerous rounds of Western sanctions with little change to the state behaviour.
Studio Europa Maastricht spoke with Craig Eggett, Associate Professor of International Law at Maastricht University, about the effectiveness of sanctions and other legal tools available to the EU.
According to Eggett, dismissing sanctions as merely symbolic motions would be incorrect, as the term covers a wide range of measures with varying effects: “When people use the word sanctions, this can mean a huge variety of things. In international law and international relations, it can mean anything from freezing bank accounts to symbolic actions, and various things in between. They can also differ widely in how effective they are. Effectiveness depends on the economic strength of the states involved and their political clout. Obviously, when the United States enacts sanctions, that can be a very powerful tool.”
Yet, looking at Iran’s long history under sanctions, Eggett acknowledges that skepticism is understandable:
“Iran has been under sanctions in various forms for decades, and you might look at that and think they are not effective: the oppressive regime remains and the West continues to take issue with the practices and policies of the state.”
However, he argues that sanctions have produced tangible results in the past. “For example, in 2015 a ‘nuclear deal’ was signed as a result of pressure from sanctions, and it forced Iran to make several concessions in return for sanctions relief. The UN Security Council was on board, the EU was on board, and that process was undone by President Trump in 2018. So, there was progress toward what the West wanted Iran to do.”
Influence of U.S. and EU
For Eggett, coordination is key:
“The actors that sanction the most, particularly the U.S. and the EU, can exert a lot of influence on states to change their behaviour. Sanctions can certainly be effective, and with the current situation in Iran, you can already see their impact both domestically and internationally.”
Beyond sanctions, EU member states remain divided over whether to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the main branch of the country’s armed forces, as a terrorist organisation. Eggett explains that such a designation would not categorically alter the IRGC’s legal status under international law, but it would change how states frame their actions:
“Designation as a terrorist entity doesn’t really change its legal position, but it allows states to justify and articulate their positions differently. If a state wants to intervene and use force, it is much easier politically to do so if it can say it is acting against a terrorist organisation.”
“There is an idea in international law that if a state is systematically violating the rights of its own population and other measures are ineffective, other states could intervene to protect civilians”
He situates this debate within broader developments in international law since the 9/11 attacks on the US: “Traditionally, the right to self-defense was confined to states: when State A attacks State B, State B can defend itself. After the attacks in 2001, we had UN Security Council resolutions and serious legal discussions about whether a state also has a right to defend itself against a terrorist actor.”
While this logic may apply to non-state actors like the Islamic State, Eggett notes that applying it to a government entity raises more complex issues:
“Designating a government as terrorist is a very different dynamic. Legally, it may not have a very significant impact, and it often functions more as a rhetorical device.”
If force were ever used against Iran, Eggett argues that humanitarian intervention could provide a stronger legal argument:
“There is an idea in international law that if a state is systematically violating the rights of its own population and other measures are ineffective, other states could intervene to protect civilians. We’ve seen this justification in Kosovo and in Syria, for example.”
Violations
Eggett also addresses alternative avenues for accountability for violations of international law, including international courts and universal jurisdiction cases in national systems. He notes that international institutions now feature far more prominently in public debate than in the past:
“We are seeing the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and the ICC discussed much more frequently in the last few years. But people often approach these institutions through the lens of national legal systems, and that comparison doesn’t always work. International law is a decentralised, horizontal system with no top-down authority.”
In case of international organisations, enforcement relies on political pressure rather than direct coercion, the expert explains: “We do see courts making decisions, whether advisory opinions or contentious judgments, but these things take a very long time. Proceedings are time consuming, arrest warrants may not be enforced, and apprehending individuals is extremely difficult. International law doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Power dynamics matter, and it depends on who the target state is and how other states respond.”
Still, Eggett rejects the idea that international law lacks real-world consequences. “There is a misconception that states don’t follow international legal decisions, but generally they do. In 2019, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago, finding that the UK had decolonised it illegally. Following that decision, the UK changed its position and concluded an agreement with Mauritius. That is a direct consequence. These decisions provide authoritative judgments that shape diplomacy, even if you don’t see arrests or fines as you may in a national system.”
Turning to the United Nations, Eggett describes it as both indispensable and deeply flawed:
“The UN has generally been a force for good in the world, but the clearest problem is the power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. One member can block action, and we’ve seen that repeatedly since 1945.”
While reforming the Security Council is unlikely, he stresses the importance of alternative UN mechanisms: “When the Security Council is blocked, issues can be taken to the General Assembly as we’ve seen it with Israel recently. The Assembly’s resolutions are not legally binding, but it is the only forum where all states are represented, and when it speaks with a strong voice, that has real political impact.”
“The UN has generally been a force for good in the world, but the clearest problem is the power of the five permanent members of the Security Council”
According to Eggett, the limits of international law in light of US President Trump’s public statements encouraging Iranian protesters and hinting at possible US military assistance: “International law is very clear on the use of force. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits force between states. There are only two generally recognised exceptions: self-defense after an armed attack, and authorisation by the Security Council. Neither would apply here. Iran clearly hasn’t attacked the US (neither did Greenland). The other way around would be true – if the US attacks Greenland, Denmark has the right for self-defense. This is complicated by NATO, because it didn’t ever envisage that one NATO member would attack another. And the Security Council will never authorise such motion due to the veto of other permanent members.”
Humanitarian intervention, he concludes, remains the most plausible legal justification: “If there are grave and systematic human rights violations and no other options are available, there is an argument that proportionate force could be used to protect civilians. Thousands of reported deaths in Iran certainly signal a grave situation. But even this justification is not universally accepted, because the prohibition on the use of force is fundamentally about protecting sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Dr Craig Eggett is Associate Professor of International Law at Maastricht University. He teaches and researchers on public international law and the law of international organisations.
